ua53080370010073240

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the resource name. It does not say whether this is a read-only lookup, whether it requires any authorization, or what form the response takes.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence with no waste, appropriately sized for a zero-argument getter. It is a fragment rather than a well-formed description, which keeps it just below the top.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of information about what the 'basic administrative profile' contains, and it gives no detail on the fields or shape of the result. For a tool whose entire contract is the returned data, this leaves the agent guessing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete and there is no parameter semantics for the description to add. Baseline 4 applies for a no-argument tool.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the resource — an 'administrative profile of a territory' — which clarifies the domain beyond the bare name get_basic_profile, and the sibling names (get_identity, get_territory_hierarchy) suggest it is the territory-level variant. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb, and it never distinguishes itself from get_identity or get_territory_hierarchy, both of which also sound like territory lookups.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus get_identity, get_sources, or get_territory_hierarchy, and no stated prerequisites. The agent must infer the selection criteria entirely from the name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only lists returned fields. It does not state that this is a read-only lookup, whether it requires a territory context or identifier argument, whether results are cached, or what happens when the territory is unknown.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single short sentence with no padding, so it is efficient. However, as a verbless fragment it is less informative than a well-formed statement would be, and it front-loads nothing about usage or scope.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of information. It covers the return fields but omits any usage context, sibling differentiation, or behavioral notes, leaving real gaps despite the tool's simplicity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The description usefully enumerates the three values returned, which partially substitutes for the absent output schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the data returned (official name, code, territory type) but uses no verb, so the agent must infer that it retrieves the identity rather than describing or modifying it. It also fails to differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling get_basic_profile, leaving the overlap unresolved.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as get_basic_profile or get_territory_hierarchy. At best, usage is implied by the returned fields, which is not enough to route between the five sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses no behavioral traits at all — no read/write profile, no permissions, no return behavior. A single noun phrase offers zero behavioral context for a tool with no structured safety hints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The phrase is short but under-specified rather than concise — it fails to say what the tool does or returns. Brevity here reflects missing information, not efficient communication.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is the only carrier of meaning, and it does not explain what the tool returns or when to call it. For a zero-param tool the bar is low, but the description still leaves the agent unable to predict the result set.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4 regardless of description content. There is no schema description to compensate for or explain, so no gap exists on this dimension.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description is a bare noun phrase ('Source of basic administrative data') that restates the resource implied by the name get_sources rather than stating a verb+resource action. It never says the tool retrieves, lists, or returns anything, and it gives no differentiation from siblings like get_basic_profile or get_territory_hierarchy.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no alternative named, and no context for selecting this tool over the sibling get_basic_profile or search_territory_knowledge. The description provides nothing to route an agent's decision.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only sketches the returned range (oblast to current unit) and never explains how the 'current unit' is resolved without any parameters, nor whether this is context/session dependent, cached, or permission-gated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence states the resource and scope with zero filler. Nothing is redundant or buried.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a no-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers what the hierarchy contains but leaves the critical question of how the target territory is determined (implicit context?) unexplained. That gap keeps it only adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter syntax, and its mention of the returned hierarchy range is the only semantic content relevant to inputs (there are none).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific resource and scope: the administrative hierarchy of a territory spanning from the oblast down to the current unit. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not differentiate itself from siblings like get_basic_profile or get_identity, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (get_basic_profile, get_identity, get_sources, search_territory_knowledge). The agent gets no conditions for selection or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no statement that this is a read-only operation, no note on how deep the 'ancestor' expansion goes, no pagination or result-shape behavior. The single sentence only restates scope.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its extreme brevity comes at the cost of content rather than being tightly edited richness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits return format, ancestor traversal semantics, and any parameter meaning. An agent can guess the intent but not the call contract.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and neither parameter is described in the schema, so the description must compensate — but it never explains what 'query' matches against or how 'limit' bounds the ancestor expansion. 'Адміністративних предків' hints that results are hierarchy-expanded, which is a small semantic gain over the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Пошук знань території') plus an unusual scope qualifier ('всіх її адміністративних предків'), which tells an agent this search expands through the administrative hierarchy rather than returning a single territory. It does not name or contrast any sibling (e.g. get_territory_hierarchy), so differentiation is left to inference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the alternatives get_territory_hierarchy or get_basic_profile, which plausibly overlap with this tool. The only usage signal is the implicit 'search' framing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.